Def. sick (tried to watch the whole of it for the Portuguese and 'cause I miss Brazil so much, but couldn't). Never much cared for the whole hidden camera schtick, but some can be funny. But not when they humiliate the person they're aimed at or cause real and significant discomfort. I mean, a person with a weak heart can very well have a heart-attack.

Holy shit... yeah, that's seriously over the top. On the other hand, I have to admit that I can think of a few people whom I dislike so strongly that I would say they deserve something like this. Not many, though.

I don't know how this stuff works in Brazil, but here in the U.S. the show that aired this would have been required to get written permission from these people before they could air the clips. If the people agree, then they thought it was all in good fun too.

Maybe that's not how this worked, but it seems likely to me.

Even if not, scaring people for humor has a long standing tradition. Whether it's ghost stories at bedtime or jumping out and yelling boo, or whatever. Good times.

I'm just glad nobody beat the crap out of the girl - some people have fight reflexes that override their flight reflex.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

The only time a joke has officially gone "over the top" is when it's caused lasting physical and/or emotional harm to another individual. And, by the way (to some other users), the potential for adverse effects of a joke is in no way a valid reason to label a joke as being over the top; sick; or cruel. The slippery-slope fallacy is just as its name suggests.

Scaring people is always fun. It's one of my favorite past-times. What's more, I enjoy being scared in turn. It's even more fun when the joke is elaborate and unconventional; such as the one in the video, which surpasses the traditional "jump out and yell BOO" gag.

What I want to know is where is the footage of people that were not fooled or where it went seriously wrong. You would think that at some point someone might have a gun or a knife. Or maybe someone that calls their bluff. You know someone that either calls them out on it by talking to the girl or maybe someone who makes the people watching think that the girl is now in some kind of danger. One example would be to start walking toward her with your hand on your fly. Not actually intending to do anything obviously, just more of a test to see if it is a real girl or a ghost. If real, the moment they see what it looks like you are about to do someone would stop you. If a real ghost, then I guess you are fucked. I am sure there are other ways someone might call their bluff. I would love to see how these pranks went wrong. Maybe faking a heart attack would be a good one as well.

Probably happened a lot, but it's not nearly as entertaining. I like to think that if this happened to me, I would calmly talk to the little ghost girl. I'd probably jump when she suddenly screams, not from fear but from being startled. Then I'd talk to her some more. Pretty boring, I'm sure they'd never air it.

Hand on my fly? Not a chance, wouldn't even think of it. I'm sad for you that you did.

I probably wouldn't think of faking a heart attack. Nah, I'd just be boring and talk to her.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

Not even sure about all the sordid details (am not particularly interested in the personal - or public - lives of people whose only claim to fame is the family one of them was born and the other one was married into), but our love for filth, sticking our noses where they do not belong and simply humiliating others is despicable.

(08-12-2012 07:27 AM)Vera Wrote: Not even sure about all the sordid details (am not particularly interested in the personal - or public - lives of people whose only claim to fame is the family one of them was born and the other one was married into), but our love for filth, sticking our noses where they do not belong and simply humiliating others is despicable.

Same question I asked you in the thread about eating meat: Don't you think that's a hasty generalization?

Using the terms "we", "us" or "our" is confusing when you don't specify whom you are talking about, i.e. unless you provide us with a context. Do you mean people on this forum, people in the Western world, humans in general, etc.?

(08-12-2012 08:01 AM)Vosur Wrote: Same question I asked you in the thread about eating meat: Don't you think that's a hasty generalization?
Using the terms "we", "us" or "our" is confusing when you don't specify whom you are talking about, i.e. unless you provide us with a context. Do you mean people on this forum, people in the Western world, humans in general, etc.?

You didn't ask me that question, though, did you? I think you may have a problem with the pronouns 'me', 'you' and 'her'

Seriously, though, it's the same vague general 'we', as the general 'you'. As in (most of) us, people. Human beings. In this world.